The parents of the 3-day-old boy told authorities they were watching television in bed with the child and their "MIXED BREED AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER" in their Flanders Drive residence about 8 p.m. Thursday when the mother coughed, startling the animal and causing it to bite the infant, according to San Diego police.

The couple took the gravely wounded baby to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead, Sgt. Tu Nguyen said.

Detectives were investigating the fatality, though it “appears to be just a tragic accident,” the sergeant said.

The county Department of Animal Services took custody of the 2-year-old dog, a neutered male named Polo. The canine will undergo a 10-day quarantine to make sure he is not rabid, after which he will be euthanized unless his owners decide to reclaim him, DAS spokesman Dan DeSousa said.

The dog had no known prior history of dangerous aggressiveness, DeSousa said.

1-3 - TYLER TRAMMELL-HUSTON - 9 - LINDA YUBA COUNTY CA - THE BOY WAS IN FOSTER CARE AND THE SYSTEM ALLOWED HIM TO VISIT WITH HIS 24-YEAR-OLD HALF SISTER WHO LIVED IN A TRAVEL TRAILER WITH 3 PIT BULLS. IT APPEARS SHE LEFT HIM TO GO TO WORK AND WHEN SHE CAME BACK HE WAS MAULED TO DEATH. 1-8/9 - PAYTON LYRIK SAWYERS - 15 MONTHS - INDEPENDENCE GRAYSON CO VA - ATTACKED BY A PIT BULL/ROTTWEILER MIX?? ON THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 6 AT A HOME OF 2 PEOPLE SAID TO BE HER BABYSITTERS - SHE WAS RUSHED TO A HOSPITAL IN NC WITH SEVERE HEAD INJURIES AND WAS PLACED ON LIFE SUPPORT- SHE DIED ON JAN 8 OR 9, 2016.

1-24 - TALEN NATHAN WEST - 7 - LUMBERTON ROBESON CO NC - PIT BULL - TWO 7 AND 8-YEAR-OLD BROTHERS WERE PLAYING IN A WOODED AREA NEAR THEIR HOME WHEN A NEIGHBOR'S PIT BULL THAT THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH ATTACKED THEM - 8-YEAR-OLD JAYLEN WAS BITTEN ON HIS LEGS BUT IT GOT TALEN BY THE NECK AND BROKE IT - HE WAS NOT RESPONSIVE WHEN FIRST RESPONDERS ARRIVED.

2-7 - AIDEN JOHNATHON-GRIM MORELLI - 3-DAY-OLD INFANT BOY- YOUNGSTOWN OH - THE 21-YEAR-OLD MOTHER WAS SLEEPING THE NIGHT ON THE COUCH AT HER MOTHER'S HOME AND LEFT THE INFANT ON THE FLOOR IN A "MAKESHIFT CRIB" REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN A LAUNDRY BASKET -HER MOTHER AND HER BROTHER WERE ALSO AT HOME DURING THIS TIME - THE MOTHER AWOKE TO FIND HER NEWBORN WITH HEAD INJURIES - THERE WERE 5 DOGS IN THE HOME - REPORTS SAY THE DOG THAT DID THIS WAS A MIXED BREED SHEPHERD.

2-10 - SUZANNE STORY- 36 - PERQUIMANS COUNTY NC - THE VICTIM'S MOTHER REPORTED THAT SHE HAD ADOPTED THE DOG THAT LOOKED LIKE A BOXER/BULLDOG MIX ABOUT A WEEK AGO FROM AN AD IN A NEWSPAPER THAT SAID IT WAS GOOD AROUND SMALL CHILDREN - SHE WAS CLEANING THE DOG'S CRATE WHEN IT ATTACKED HER - HER SISTER WAS THERE AT THE TIME AND TRIED TO GET IT OFF HER AND WAS INJURED ALSO - SHE WAS AIRLIFTED TO A HOSPITAL BUT DIED AS THE HELICOPTER WAS LANDING.

3-8 - GLADYS ALEXANDER - 92 - THURSTON CO WASHINGTON - THE WORLD WAR II VET WAS ATTACKED BY 4 PIT BULL MIXES THAT WERE AT HER NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET - SHE HAD WALKED ACROSS THE STREET TO GIVE THE NEIGHBOR THE NEWSPAPER BUT THE NEIGHBOR HAD GONE OUT FOR A FEW MINUTES AND IT LOOKED LIKE THE DOGS GRABBED HER AND DRAGGED HER INSIDE THE HOUSE - THE NEIGHBOR RETURNED AND FOUND THE DOGS ATTACKING HER AND STOPPED IT BUT NOT BEFORE THE DAMAGE WAS DONE - HER LEG AND ARM WERE AMPUTATED BUT SHE SUCCUMBED TO THE HORRIFIC INJURIES.

3-28 - BESSIE FLOWERS - 86 - CHARLOTTE NC - POLICE SOURCES STATED THAT WHILE VISITING IN HER DAUGHTER'S TOWNHOME THE ELDERLY WOMAN WAS ON THE BACK DECK AND SLIPPED OR TRIPPED AS SHE WAS COMING BACK INSIDE AND FELL - THE DAUGHTER'S 2 AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIERS WHICH THE VICTIM KNEW WELL BEGAN "PLAYING" WITH HER AND THEN ESCALATED INTO A FULL-BLOWN ATTACK GOING IN FOR THE KILL ON HER NECK AND HEAD - NEIGHBORS SAID THAT THE DOGS HAD SHOWN AGGRESSION IN THE PAST ATTACKING 2 OTHER DOGS - AFTER SEEING HER OWN MOTHER MAULED TO DEATH BY HER PIT BULLS THE DAUGHTER STILL REFUSED TO SIGN THE DOGS OVER TO OFFICIALS SO ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS SEIZED THEM.

3-31 - SONDA TYSON - 66 - LEESBURG FL - THE VICTIM WAS MAULED BY HER BRINDLE PIT BULL MIX SHE HAD ACQUIRED AS A PUPPY - SHE WAS FOUND ON HER BACK PORCH BY HER 13-YEAR-OLD GRANDDAUGHTER AND HER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW WITH SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO HER ARMS THAT WAS MISSING FLESH WITH BONES VISIBLE - THE DOG WAS STILL NEARBY HER INSIDE THE HOME SO A POLICE OFFICER SHOT IT TWICE FROM ON TOP OF A FIRE TRUCK SO THAT MEDICS COULD GET TO THE VICTIM BUT SHE HAD ALREADY DIED - IT IS BELIEVED SHE BLED TO DEATH. 4-21 - SEBASTIAN CABAN - 3-DAY-OLD INFANT BOY - MIRA MESA SAN DIEGO CA - FIRST REPORT SAYS THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF THE INFANT WERE IN BED BESIDE IT WATCHING TV WITH THEIR NEUTERED 2-YEAR-OLD PIT BULL WHEN THE MOM COUGHED AND TRIGGERED THE PIT TO ATTACK THE BABY AND KILL IT - THE PIT BULL WAS ADOPTED FROM THE SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO AND WAS TESTED FOR AGGRESSION - NO WORD ON WHAT THE PIT BULL'S HISTORY WAS - HAD IT EVER ATTACKED ANYONE BEFORE?

5 comments:

Oh come on. Coughing? People really can say that with a straight face? I saw this headline in an online "newspaper" and almost spit my coffee on the keyboard. I know I am hoping for too much to think that there is not a person on the planet that would believe that.

As for the ever changing label of the dog- I just can not stand this. Even worse John Q Public buys into it because "rescues" and pounds deliberately do this to market their dogs. There is now not a day when I go out into public where I do not encounter them.

Last night I was looking into a place to board my little dogs. I have always had a house sitter before. I thought I had a great place all picked out until I happened upon their Facebook page and saw them being thanked for taking in "7 Pitties" onto their property for a local pit pushing group. I am fully aware that there is no kennel in the world where there is zero margin of error and am back to trying to find a house sitter. I tried googling "kennels that do not allow pit bulls" and came up with nothing.

A tragic accident that keeps on happening all across the country. How many tragedies does it take before we start preventing said tragedies?

If you look at the big picture, pit bulls are a huge problem. If you look locally, it's easy to think that it's abnormal for a dog to kill a baby. However, nanny dogs are killing babies at an alarming rate. It's not an isolated incident, but the nutters want you to think it is.

I feel terrible for the child, but the parents can rot in hell along with their killer pit bull. It's not rabid by the way. Pit bulls kill perfectly fine without having rabies. AND WHAT IS WITH GIVING THE PSYCHOPATH PARENTS THE OPTION OF REGAINING THEIR BABY KILLER IF IT DOESN'T HAVE RABIES? I am so disgusted with pit bull worshipers!

Now they have been scrambling to change the dog breed to "Great Dane mix" how nice of them to try and throw another breed under the bus! De Sousa stated " he doesn't want to stereo type any dog breed, and no one knows what the dog was thinking" Duh! That's what defines a breed- their own breed specific traits and genetics! SD AC has been transformed into a Pit pushing organization- They even have a "Saint Pitties Day $17 adoption special" (and many others) for them. Also another quote by AC when a dog was killed at a local dog beach- "we see this happen about once a week" you guessed it- its usually by a Pitbull

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.